Quotes from Erwin Chemerinsky

Although the federal and state governments rarely can be sued because they are protected by sovereign immunity,47 the Supreme Court has held that local governments—cities and counties—do not have sovereign immunity.48

California v. Greenwood in 1988, the Court held that when police searched a person's garbage that was left on the street for pickup, there was not a search, and no warrant was required.

A city can be sued only when a police officer or city employee inflicts injury pursuant to an official municipal policy.

a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime."28

As long as an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed or might commit a crime, there can be a stop. And as long as an officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person might have a weapon, there can be a frisk.

Because Miranda warnings were deemed a constitutional requirement, Congress could not eliminate them by statute. Therefore Section 3501 was unconstitutional because "Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution."5 Why didn't the conservative majority

prosecutors have absolute immunity for their prosecutorial acts, no matter how egregious they are or how much harm they inflict. In Imbler v. Pachtman in 1976, a prosecutor had been sued for damages for knowingly using perjured testimony that resulted in an innocent person's conviction and incarceration for nine years.

This decision means that the police can enter a home or a business illegally, and if they see contraband or evidence of illegal activity, they can then go to a magistrate for a warrant. The police don't have to tell the judge about their illegal entry. They

Massiah v. Illinois, the Court held that without the presence of a lawyer, the police may not attempt to deliberately elicit statements from a person who has been indicted.6 That same year the Court went further and, in Escobedo v. Illinois, held that even before there is an indictment, criminal defendants have the right to have an attorney present while police are questioning them in custody.7

United States v. Leon, the key case, was very controversial when it was decided in 1984. For the first time ever, the Court recognized a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and paved the way for a much broader exception later.

It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation. To be sure, this is not physical intimidation, but it is equally destructive of human dignity.

That the search violated the Fourth Amendment was undisputed—it had been done without probable cause. But the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was nonetheless admissible at trial.

if a person invokes the right to remain silent, all questioning must cease. If a person asks for a lawyer, questioning must end until one is provided

the Court has ruled that government officials who are sued for monetary damages—whether they are federal officers sued under Bivens or state or local officers sued under Section 1983—have an immunity defense. Step by step it has found that many in the criminal justice system—judges, prosecutors, and police officers as witnesses—are absolutely immune from being sued.

Berghuis, the Court ruled that the same is true of the right to remain silent. Simply put, a person is not protected by the right to remain silent unless he or she knows to say and actually says something as explicit as "I wish to assert my right to remain silent.

Federalism should not provide state and local governments with the power to ignore the Constitution in any area, least of all in policing. Rizzo v. Goode, followed a short time later by City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, eliminated the power of federal courts to remedy proven patterns of racist, unconstitutional policing.

Second, where sheriffs and constables had been under local judicial authority, the police were placed under cities' executive authority.

Police officers, like all other witnesses, can be criminally prosecuted for perjury, the Court said, which provided an adequate deterrent to perjury.

in 2000 the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional, stressing that Congress by statute cannot overrule the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Such lawsuits, known as "Bivens suits," are an essential way to enforce the Constitution and hold federal officers liable, especially since the U.S. government has sovereign immunity and generally cannot be sued for monetary damages.

ruling that tangible evidence may be used against a criminal defendant, even if the police learned of it only through an interrogation that was done in violation of Miranda. In United States v. Patane in 2004, the Court held that police failure to give a criminal suspect the required Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence learned as a result of the questioning.

suspects waive their Miranda rights in 83.7 percent of interrogations.28 A national study came to a similar conclusion and found that 81 percent of all suspects waived their rights.

police know that even if they intentionally violate Miranda and the statements gained are not admissible, the information obtained still can be used in other ways against the suspect. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions allow the statements to be used for other purposes—such as to impeach a criminal defendant at trial34 or to lead to physical evidence that can be admitted.35

when police violate the Fourth Amendment's requirement for "knock and announce," the exclusionary rule does not apply.